I still think too many people want to make crimes of what more reasonable people would use as teachable moments.

The sinking of the Titanic provided a teachable moment for the entire industry. That does not justify the recklessness of many of the decisions leading to the disaster, or the loss of life and property.

I think reasonable men can disagree. It does not necessarily mean I'm less reasonable than you because we disagree on this issue.

So, K_Mac, is it reasonable to assume you think all hunting accidents that result in injury should be criminally charged? All traffic accidents? All boating accidents? If not, what is your cutoff for criminal vs civil liability?

Its a chance you take carrying a pistol with a round in the chamber. If he didn't we would not be having this discussion.

The problem is there was a complaint made the police have to follow it up i would think end expect an experienced police officer to know better than to carry a loaded firearm and not have it in a holster. Before having to much sympathy for the officer if you did the same thing he or one of his colleagues could be round arresting you and telling you how stupid you where.

So, K_Mac, is it reasonable to assume you think all hunting accidents that result in injury should be criminally charged? All traffic accidents? All boating accidents? If not, what is your cutoff for criminal vs civil liability?

No, that conclusion is not supported by my posts.

I think the question of where the line is drawn is a fair one though. At the end of the day the line is not always clear. You simply cannot use a one size fits all answer to this question. All hunting, or boating, or lawn darts accidents are not criminal, but if someone is killed or injured and you have been reckless in your actions, maybe it is. To use your argument, mens rea is either intent or recklessness. The administration of justice is is not simple or easy. Our system of justice that you find oppressive takes this into consideration.

Back on topic, if this negligent discharge of a weapon in a shopping mall is not 'endangering safety by use of a deadly weapon' what is? Is it right for the government to have laws on the books that protect citizens? Seems like I've read that somewhere...

Since his intent was not to shoot, now you are left with recklessness. Since there have been many gun owners, over the years, for whom holster-less carry was normal, IMO you can't establish recklessness simply because you (and I) think holster-less is a bad idea. You would need either statute or case law that said such carry met the level required for recklessness, as opposed to simple carelessness. These are not the same.

Some folks have thrown "Plaxico" around. Please bear in mind that Mr. Burress was not licensed to carry in NY. I am not sure if his gun was legally owned in NY. His charges did not directly result from the discharge of the weapon, but from the fact he was carrying it in the first place.

Holsterless carry is a bad idea, and when it endangers others it goes beyond that to reckless. You claim carelessness rather than recklessness. We do not need a statute to establish the difference. We need only to look at the cause of the action that put lives at risk. You say that carrying a 'safe action' pistol stuck in your pants is normal because some do it, and it is not specifically prohibited. I say that when you carry a weapon in a reckless manner you assume the risks that go with it.

I once went rabbit hunting with a guy who carried a semi auto shotgun through fields and woods all day without using his safety. At the end of the day, I noticed that long before he shot he had his finger on the trigger and he did not disengage the safety before shooting. When I asked about it, he told me he wanted to be ready to shoot and he never used the safety. What he learned from this opportunity was hunting or shooting with me was no longer an option. It was careless on my part to hunt with someone who did not follow the rules. It was reckless on his part not to. We don't need a law or lawyer to know the difference.

MLeake, it is hard for me to imagine this will come to trial and I think you know that. It is also hard for me to imagine that anyone on a jury could find our Sergeant's actions anything but negligent.

I have beat this horse long enough, any more might be considered recklessness. Peace.

K_Mac, I could not keep my current job with a misdemeanor firearms conviction. This is why I do not see it as "just a misdemeanor," and why I do not think the sergeant will accept any plea that comes with a conviction.

People seem to think a misdemeanor is only a slap on the wrist. This is not true.

Since there have been many gun owners, over the years, for whom holster-less carry was normal, IMO you can't establish recklessness simply because you (and I) think holster-less is a bad idea.

To me, it appears you are trying to take a more general practice that can be done safely or with significantly less risk (carrying a handgun without a holster) and conflate it with a practice that is almost impossible to do safely (carrying a cocked and loaded constant action handgun with no holster or device to block access to the trigger). I don't know if you are doing it intentionally, unintentionally or just don't understand why that is an important difference in this case.

I don't think you'll find that most gun owners regard the holsterless carry of cocked and loaded safe-action pistols as normal. And even if they did, it is still an unsafe practice, regardless of how many people do it. I think JohnKSA outlined why very well.

k, been following this one since it started.
I highly doubt the officer went out with the intent of this happening.
Did it happen? Yes. Speculation aside it was negligence on his part.

Having worked in a few DOJ & DOD offices I have met some gun handling cocky LEOs. One got EXTREMELY offended when I asked him not to throw around the bag he had his service weapon in.

He said it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to miss fire. A few weeks later he had a misfire at the range when he "forgot" about the chambered round pulled the clip and dropped the safety on what he thought was an empty weapon.

It's not the exact scenario but JMO, if it's exposed to other things around it (such as in his bag) or out of a holster where it can snag or an accidental trigger pull can occur it's a bad idea.

Not sure who posted earlier but they mentioned a pocket carry which I would say is not as bad, because your pocket "becomes the holster" but like it was also said on here it's too easy to forget about the house key you had in your pocket or to drop that pen in your hand in there along with it...

My basic premise is, carrying with out a holster (especially if it's a trigger action safety or no safety set up) is a lot like screwing without a condom, sure it feels good, but it is careless and you better be able to deal with the consequences....

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Again, there is basic negligence and there is criminal negligence. You want to talk conflation...

Meanwhile, bearing in mind that many cops are not gun guys, how many of us grew up watching Magnum PI rack his 1911, then tuck it in the back of his waistband?

I stopped carrying a 1911 in one shoulder holster I had, because I found that the thumb safety would get clicked off sometimes during carry. Yet some posters to this thread seem to think a 1911 is ok for Mexican carry.

Pocket carry, meanwhile, could be pants or coat. It can allow for dropping of the weapon, and foreign object intrusion.

Meanwhile, JohnKSA says a holster must guard the trigger. Yet a lot of revolver guys use Threepersons type holsters, that wholly expose the trigger. And DeSantis just introduced a pocket holster that leaves a hole over the trigger guard, and another over the grip, so the gun can be shot from the pocket...

Make the guy pay for the floor. Make the guy pay for the woman's doctor visit. Slap him with a fine, pull his gun privileges pending remedial training, and put a note in his file at the department. That is all fine. Why, exactly, do we need to give the guy a criminal record?

Edit: this would be a great opportunity for the department to put out an order that all handguns shall be carried in some kind of holster, if they already haven't; for Wisconsin to stipulate holsters for CCW, if it hasn't; and for the sergeant to be assigned to give lectures about not being a bonehead. Those are all more appropriate than criminal action.

Wisconsin just passed concealed carry this year. From what I understand, people generally did not make much use of open carry. IE there probably isn't much precedent. I do agree there should not be a double standard, but I would have the same opinion if the bonehead had been a civilian CCW.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.